Confusion in 2004

[Pride373]

"We believe this grant program will achieve the greatest benefits if we provide funds to fire departments purchasing basic firefighting, rescue, EMS, and CBRNE preparedness equipment that they have never owned prior to the grant or to replace used or obsolete firefighting equipment. Our second priority will be to fund departments that are seeking to expand into new mission areas, and therefore those departments will receive a lower competitive rating than departments
seeking reserve equipment."
-2004 Program Guidance

Doesn't this seem conflicted? On the one hand, they want to fund departments who have never owned the equipment they are applying for, but not fund a "new mission area"? "Reserve Equipment" receives a better competitive rating than "new mission area" equipment, but "never owned" equipment receives a better rating?

If my department doesn't own gloves, would that be considered a new mission area?

[tmnkwd]

I would assume that lower should be higher. That was the mission behind the 2003 grant. I'm not sure where that quote came from but it is likely misquoted or just plain wrong.

[SmokeyDaBear]

Each category has its own questions for what you are asking for. You must fill out a sheet for each item requested. In the PPE activity it has the following questions: To buy equipment for first time, To replace old/obsolete equipment , To replace torn/tattered damaged equipment , To replace contaminated equipment , To replace worn,but usable equipment, To replace used equipment , To replace new equipment , To equip firefighters to handle a new mission , To increase the departments available supply of this equipment....
It does add more work than last year but we all are under the same rules, Good luck to us all.

[Pride373]

tmnkwd, it's not misquoted, it is pulled directly out of the program guidance. I don't misquote.

[tmnkwd]

Relax, I didn't say you misquoted, only that it is likely a misquote from somewhere.

[Pride373]

And I'm telling you that I pulled it directly from the 2004 FEMA program guidance. There is no misquote.

[BC79er_OLDDELETE]

I think what tmnkwd means is, that the Program Guidance is the English version of the actual law, interpreted most likely by an intern. So in the creation of the Program Guidance document is where the mis-quoting was done.